Henry Gearhart, Jylaine Gearhart, and Orion Gearhart v. John Wardell and Wife, Lois Wardell ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-15-00096-CV
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
10/21/2015 4:08:10 PM
Dorian E. Ramirez
NO. 13-1S-00096-CV
CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
CORPUS CHRISTI-EDINBURG, TEXAS
-- IN
RECEIVED
13th COURT --- OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG,
- - - ---- TEXAS
- - ---- PP ------
10/21/2015
-
- ID -4:08:10 PM
-
---- VO ------
DORIAN - - E. RAMIREZ
HENRY GEARHART, JYLIANE GEARHART, ---- Clerk
----
AND ORION GEARHART
VS.
FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL
CORPUS
CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
10/21/2015 4:08:10 PM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
Clerk
FROM THE 206th DISTRICT COURT
HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE'S SURREPLY BRIEF,
JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL
Ricardo Gonzalez
State Bar No. 08131490
OXFORD & GONZALEZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
124 S. 12th St.
P.O. DRAWER 630
Edinburg, Texas 78540
(956) 383-5654
(956) 381-0002 - FAX
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
JOHN WARDELL
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... 4
ARGUMENT...................................................................................6
2
Cases
Schnitzendable v
Hasting,
97 S.W.2d715, (Tex. Civ. App. 1936) ....................................6
Hearts Bluff v. State,
381 SW3d 461,491 (Tx 2012) ......................................................6
3
NO. 13-1S-00096-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT
CORPUS CHRISTI-EDINBURG, TEXAS
HENRY GEARHART, JYLIANE GEARHART,
AND ORION GEARHART
VS.
JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL
FROM THE 206th DISTRICT COURT
HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
BRIEF OF APPELLEES,
JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL
APPELLEE'S SURREPLY BRIEF
Appellee provided Supreme Court Authority that the applicable
Statute of Limitations for a permanent trespass is two years from the date of the
incursion. (Appellee's Brief pages 15-16 and case therein Schneider, Auerbach,
Provident Ins. and SVV RV). Appellants ignore the issue and concede the point.
ABATEMENT
Appellees produce Supreme Court Authority that abatement "cannot
revive barred damages" arising from a permanent trespass. (Appellee's
Brief, p. 16, Schneider). Appellants drop the point. Appelleesproduced
federal and state Supreme Court authority that revival of permanently barred
actions violate constitutional standards. (Appellee's Brief pages 19-20,
Baker Hughes, Fronme and Schneider[state];and Fletcher, Bowie and
Splawn- [federal]). Appellants concede the point.
Appellees provide Supreme Court Authority that consent precludes
trespass; that an easement is "relinquishment of a right to exclude" and that
authorized entries cannot constitute trespass. (AppeUees'Briefpages 22-23,
EPS, Schneider, Watauga, Barnes, Farming). Appellants drop the point.
ARGUMENTS IN THE TRIAL COURT
Appellants argue problematically "what difference does it make whether or
not these arguments were made in the trial court?" The salient difference is that
new matters cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This gains added
forcefulness when the case was resolved by submission and appellants put on no
evidence.
5
TAKING REVISITED
Schnitzendable v. Hastings 97 SW2d 715 (San Antonio, 1936) avails
Gearhart's nothing. It turned on the two year statute of limitations which case
held:
The cause of Action for damages for interferences with an easement
for ingress and egress held barred by two -year statute of limitations
where road was blocked in 1926, after which plaintiffs made no
attempt to cross defendant's land and suit was not instituted until
March 29, 1934 id P 716.
It is plain from the evidence and the testimony of Schnitzendable,
that his cause of action, accrued more than 2 years prior to filing and
is barred by the Statute of Limitations. id p 717.
Appellant's claims for an easement by prescription or necessity were
precluded by their failure to act on it " until suit was filed, some ten years
later." id. p718. Nor could appellant claim that "his deed did not mean what
it plainly said "or that he acquired rights" contrary to the plain tenns of the
instrument." id. P 716. Appellants did not file suit until September 27,2013
4 years after the driveway was paved by John Wardell's predecessor in title.
Appellees cited Supreme Court Authority that a "taking" requires
action by a governmental entity with eminent domain authority not a private
person. (Appellees' Brief 17-18) Appellants concede the point. In addition, a
jurisdictional prerequisite to a taking required an ownership interest in the
6
propel1y taken. ( Hearts Bluff, Tx Dot v Sunset Villiage, Tx Dot v API
PIPE). Appellants ignore the point.
If the Court accepts the Appellants' is incorrect interpretation of well-
established precedent, a cause of action for trespass or interference with an
easement would have a perpetual statute of limitations.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
F or the reasons stated the decision of the trial court should be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
OXFORD & GONZALEZ
Attorneys at Law
124 S. 1ih St.
P.O. Drawer 630
Edinburg, Texas 78540
(956) 383-5654
(956) 381-0002 - FAX
BY: --~+--+-------+~--~-
Ricardo Gonzalez
State BarNo. 08131490
ATTORNEY FOR APP
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Counsel for Appellee
verifies that the foregoing document contains 795 words.
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this t-t th day of October, I sent a copy of this brief to the Offices of
Preston Henrichson and Brandon Holibar regular mail and further emailed it to
them.
Preston Henrichson
Brandon Holibar
222 W. Cano
3409 N. 10th Street, Suite 100
Edinburg, Texas 78539
McAllen, Texas 78501
(956) 383-3535
(956) 687-6294
(956) 381-3585- Fax (956) 687-5514 - Fax
eservices@henrichsonlaw.com info@kinglrgvlaw.com
Ricardo Gonza ez
Oxford & Gonzalez
124 S. 12th Street.
Edinburg, TX 78539
(956) 383-5654
(956) 381-0002 - Fax
ric@oxfordandgonzalez.com
9
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Schnitzendable v Hasting,
97 S.\'V.2d 715, (rex. Civ. i\pp. 1936) ............ " ..................................................................5
Hearts Blutf v. State,
381 S\!V3d 461, 491 (fx 2012).............................................................................................5
10